Why all this controvery about the Man of Steel ending *SPOILERS*Posted by RollTide1987 on 6/26/13 at 6:25 am

00

I finally saw Man of Steel last night and saw the controversial scene where Superman snaps General Zod's neck. A lot of so-called "purists" apparently had a huge problem with that because Superman (apparently) doesn't kill. And yet I seem to remember in Superman II where Superman crushes the hand of a mortal General Zod, picks him up, and throws him into a bottomless pit with a big arse smirk on his face. At least in this one Superman showed quite a bit of remorse after he did the deed.

re: Why all this controvery about the Man of Steel ending *SPOILERS*Posted by Murray on 6/26/13 at 7:17 am to RollTide1987

quote:And yet I seem to remember in Superman II where Superman crushes the hand of a mortal General Zod, picks him up, and throws him into a bottomless pit with a big arse smirk on his face. At least in this one Superman showed quite a bit of remorse after he did the deed.

That one did come off like he enjoyed it huh?

I didn't mind him killing Zod at all other than I would like to see Zod again in a sequel, or that Superman probably could've just used his hands to cover Zod's eyes and block the heat vision.

That being said, how would Superman ever imprison Zod if he had just beat him down and kept him alive?

re: Why all this controvery about the Man of Steel ending *SPOILERS*Posted by shifty94 on 6/26/13 at 7:53 am to RollTide1987

i was very much surprised in the ending in that he killed general zod. with that said i liked ending. killing but being remorseful and saddening that he had to take a life to save everyone. great movie overall.

re: Why all this controvery about the Man of Steel ending *SPOILERS*Posted by Ace Midnight on 6/26/13 at 7:57 am to RollTide1987

quote:A lot of so-called "purists" apparently had a huge problem with that because Superman (apparently) doesn't kill.

-Superman doesn't kill

-Zod should have been invulnerable (they sort of left us to glean that - Superman's been here his whole life, he's stronger and Zod's full invulnerability hadn't quite kicked in yet.)

However, I felt the movie conveyed the reluctance and remorse Superman felt. Mrs. Midnight did not like the ending, because "Superman doesn't kill."

Personally, I would have preferred putting Zod back in the Phantom Zone (which was Nolan's preference, as well, apparently). However, IF Superman is going to have to kill, MoS handled it about as well as possible.

re: Why all this controvery about the Man of Steel ending *SPOILERS*Posted by Ace Midnight on 6/26/13 at 8:47 am to DMagic

quote:This sounds so crotchety

I call them like I see them.

Snyder is not on my "trusted" filmmaker list, but Nolan is. I gave the movie a chance. I give it a C minus. It would have been better if it cut down on the unnecessarily extended CGI scenes and not made the Kryptonians look like members of the Brotherhood of Steel from the Fallout game series.

Likewise, Jackson is on my trusted filmmaker list - he could have made The Hobbit better by severely cutting the Goblin mine battle (or eliminating it altogether, Game of Thrones-style).

re: Why all this controvery about the Man of Steel ending *SPOILERS*Posted by illuminatic on 6/26/13 at 9:21 am to Ace Midnight

quote:-Zod should have been invulnerable (they sort of left us to glean that - Superman's been here his whole life, he's stronger and Zod's full invulnerability hadn't quite kicked in yet.)

I don't think this argument works because shouldn't the kryptonians (sp?) be able to kill each other? Someone already mentioned how Superman crushed Zod's hand in Superman II and no one questioned it. So why can they break other bones but can't snap a neck?